Text Size

-

+

reset

On Wednesday evening, in the first of two debates with his two main challengers for the Republican nomination, the same argument that propelled Hatch to victory nearly four decades ago was used against him, forcing the longest-serving politician in Utah history to defend his bid for a seventh Senate term.

Former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist, a baby-faced one-term lawmaker who poses the most potent threat to Hatch, sought to force the incumbent to answer for the explosion of federal spending during his long tenure.

“You’ve had 18 years on the Senate Finance Committee, senator, and in that time we’ve expanded these problems, not retracted them. We’ve expanded spending, not pulled back,” Liljenquist charged. “I guess the question I have is, ‘What’s going to be different next time?’”

“I guess you haven’t seen who’s been in charge of that Finance Committee most of that time,” Hatch replied, invoking what became a standard answer — blaming the Democrats in power. “We’re going to change it. We’re going to take over. And I think it’s going to take Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch to do it.”

For the most part, Hatch went unscathed during the 90-minute debate as he repeatedly stressed the 36 years of seniority that could make him chairman of the powerful Finance Committee.

While Liljenquist packed the most energy on the stage and won consistent and raucous rounds of applause inside a high school auditorium about 25 minutes south of Salt Lake City, it was evident he was reluctant to swing too hard at Hatch. A third candidate, state Rep. Chris Herrod — mostly a peripheral player in the contest — lauded Hatch’s service and asked to be judged solely on his own accomplishments.

Both seemed to recognize the delicate and difficult balancing act they were confronted with: how to respectfully assail a genial, well-liked party elder without coming off as too brash and vituperative. And it showed in Liljenquist’s kid-glove approach.

“Thought Dan did very well, but you can’t hit Grandpa,” quipped one Utah GOP operative who backs Liljenquist, referring to the 78-year-old Hatch.

When Liljenquist offered a salient critique of Hatch’s vote in favor of President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug expansion, he appeared to undercut his own argument just a few minutes later by saying he didn’t have a problem with the substance of the program either.

Hatch, on the other hand, seized on the controversial vote to underscore yet another benefit he has delivered to constituents over the years — he argued that the legislation has helped lengthen lives by decades.

“It’s one reason why we’re now approaching 100 years of age. If you lived to age 74, you’re going to live to age 90 and maybe even 100,” Hatch asserted.

Readers' Comments (8)

What amazes me is that Hatch, McCain and Lugar, to name three, haven't accumulated enough money, fame and respect to preserve their integrity in their campaigns. These old men seem willing to lie, sell out their principles and desperately grovel to keep 'their' senate seats. Don't they have anything else they'd rather do before they die? How about spending more quality time with their spouses and families? All three men I mentioned are frail and not really up to the physical rigors of the job. Lugar hasn't even had a residence in Indiana for over a decade. All three men are Washington animals and need to retire, to graciously make room for a newer generation of leaders. And yet they won't. Instead, we see them humiliate themselves and show signs of dementia, as when McCain denied ever being a political maverick. It's really pretty sad.